Live data from Hacker News

RIP Culture War Thread

slatestarcodex.com

211–220 of 313 posts

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s untrue, and ignored evidence from many newer forums and their descent into madness. Take HN, gaming forums and so on - they work decently. Here’s my rules of the network from a moderators perspective 1) politics and religion are about maximally polarizing. If your forum/topic has no need for these topics, exclude them with great prejudice. 2) there are 2 types of forums. Some forums are built around goal drive…

Gaming forums? They rank up there as the worst the internet has to offer. Which one exactly are you taking about? Because all the ones I've seen are toxic cesspools unless it's a subreddit for a niche game like Factorio, which is consequently small with a very specific demographic.

I would guess they're talking about niche gaming forums. I know a bunch myself - /r/Factorio, /r/KerbalSpaceProgram, /r/Subnautica, /r/StardewValley... oh wait, the latter two aren't that niche.

In my experience, it's a matter of focus and moderation. Unfocused groups turn quickly into toxic cesspools, whether the groups are made of nerds (e.g. 4chan) or genpop (Facebook threads, or comment sections in those publications who didn't yet turn them off).

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#212
post #14

This highlights some very troublesome trends on the internet these days. We once envisioned the internet as a place of revolutionarily open discourse, where any idea under the sun could get posted somewhere and read, no matter how crazy or bad it seemed, with the worst ridiculed and dismissed, but still able to be read, and the best rising to the top. It seems like we're moving in the opposite direction these days, w…

> and the best rising to the top.

Did you ever actually read newsgroups like soc.culture.yugoslavia in the early 90s?

I just went to take a quick peek to refresh my memory, and yes, it was quite awful - https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!searchin/soc.culture.yug...

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who decides which information is beneficial, useful or constructive? What makes you think you are on the right side? By the way, I note that you have been downvoted/flagged to oblivion. I only see your comment because I prefer to browse with 'showdead' enabled. So, you presumably post here because you like this forum, yet your peers think your comment was not worth anyone even _viewing_. I think your comment was…

It's not about what information is useful. It's controlling what information is bad/can be abused. How do I feel about my comment being flagged? It's totally expected. This is a heavy technolibertarian site. The idea that "things will just sort themselves out" in any field can never be questioned. Saying that maybe things should be a little bit controlled is always met with extreme cult like fervor. The current effec…

Do you see the irony in your first sentence? Your concern about information isn't about it being useful but about it can be bad/abuseable? What you decry in "technolibertarians" you are for with censorship.

The same logic applies to both of them except information is a way more useful tool with less potential for abuse and has censorship has proven full of more bads. You complain of status quos and norms not being taken into consideration yet never think of the downsides of your "careful" approach which is actually recklessness driven by fear.

You can always attempt to validate claims that you hear that may be false. There is nothing that can be done to claims not heard and spread. And that is one hell of a camel's nose under the tent.

Abuse is all about the wielder anyway. To give up potential and put oneself in the position of much worse abusers because of "bad people might abuse it".

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#214

I dunno why people think moderating comments is so hard. It's obvious when someone is arguing in bad faith: repeating the same stuff over and over, condescending tone, dismissing opposing side, etc. People are afraid of being accused of censorship.

Absolutely NOT. Moderating comments is hard, and it is rarely clear if someone is arguing in good or even bad faith. Tone of voice does not carry on the internet. Worse, Good moderation is simply a better training environment for the next generation of harassers and bad users. From my experience - basic rules got rid of the dumbest type of harasser currently active on the forum, but then created a medium for a more e…

> The rule of moderation is that your attackers keep moving up a Turing-like scale, till inevitably their arguments are indistinguishable from genuine comments made out of ignorance or lack of malice.

At this point you really should ask yourself whether to continue moderating such comments. If you're at the level of hearing "dog whistles", you're already starting to act in bad faith.

I think Scott Alexander correctly identifies the biggest problem of moderation: that while you may think that it's about fostering civilized discourse, it isn't. When you get recognizable, it becomes primarily about protecting reputation of your own brand or name.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#215
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, as described in this article, is that some people have good faith beliefs, respectfully expressed, that are nevertheless so repugnant to others that you will be tarred for not censoring them.

>is that some people have good faith beliefs, respectfully expressed, that are nevertheless so repugnant to others that you will be tarred for not censoring them. I'm skeptical of this - I've never seen a polite racist argument, for example, or a polite homophobic one. The closest I've seen is a post riddled with condescension - something along the lines of "you don't understand, I'm trying to save your soul from the…

Polite racist arguments are rare these days, but I've heard them, as well as polite homophobic arguments.

I won't bother repeating them here, but the point is that those arguments are rarely made in good faith. Usually it's someone making a hateful argument cleverly to make it more palatable.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#216

As to the "no comments section" policies, I'm gonna be honest: I don't blame them one bit. No one owes anyone a platform, and considering how easy and cheap it is to host your own content, why should anyone be forced to broadcast someone else's opinion? The truth of the matter is there are more trolls these days - see especially "The Card Says Moops" ( https://youtu.be/xMabpBvtXr4 ) as to one reason why. If you say "…

Scott isn't blaming them for shutting down comments either, in fact Scott is also shutting down comments. Scott is blaming them for not being truthful about the reason they shut down comments.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree that SF is a special kind of bubble, but I do think there's been an explosion of shockingly extreme right-wing thinking on the Internet in recent years... really since about 2008-2012 as near as I can tell. I think you can attribute that seeming explosion (at least in part) to people suppressing moderate conservatives, who then have a choice between becoming enlightened classical liberals and bearing the co…

I haven't seen a lot of active suppression of right wing views other than the more numerous liberals having more bodies to throw at arguments. If the tables were turned and liberal ideas were less popular than conservative ideas then by human nature we'd likely see the same kinds and amount of individual attacks. It already happens in right wing enclaves. I've been banned from multiple conservative subreddits for mak…

Yeah in my experience it is more conservatives (mostly fundamentalists) who have a persecution complex about it. Which is very differently from those who are or were persecuted.

One brings it out and up everywhere as self-justification as they aren't actually being persecuted haven't tweaked their behaviors from even negative receptions. One may call them drama llamas trenchantly but more charitably it is identity based instead of experience based.

The other is met with far more guarded pessimism and even with angry backlash tends to be in "friendlier" spaces or stressed. It is more confided than presented usually, more angry than righteous. Actually some degree of trauma territory.

These are individual situations based on experiences fundamentally. Ironic inversions of the typical and coexistence of "real" and "fake" persecution behaviors are possible.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#218
post #14

This highlights some very troublesome trends on the internet these days. We once envisioned the internet as a place of revolutionarily open discourse, where any idea under the sun could get posted somewhere and read, no matter how crazy or bad it seemed, with the worst ridiculed and dismissed, but still able to be read, and the best rising to the top. It seems like we're moving in the opposite direction these days, w…

Bruce Schneier had a really good essay on what happenned: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/01/power_and_the...

> What we forgot is that technology magnifies power in both directions. When the powerless found the Internet, suddenly they had power. But while the unorganized and nimble were the first to make use of the new technologies, eventually the powerful behemoths woke up to the potential -- and they have more power to magnify. And not only does the Internet change power balances, but the powerful can also change the Internet.

Internet is just a force multiplier.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#219
This is a really over the top one sided presentation.

The thread being mourned was continually full of really shockingly horrible stuff. Straight faced technobabble laden arguments for genocide and such. A reliable go-to for "oh-shit,-humanity-is-screwed" porn.

It was impossible to tell how much of it was actually awful people earnestly advancing awful ideas vs screwed up performance art with people intentionally posting the worst stuff they could think of just for shock value or to mock the fact that participants there responded so embarrassingly to so much of it. ... but I don't think that is a defense of it at all, it's an indictment.

I had previously believed (and people who knew Scott personally lead me to believe...) that the thread was created as a tarpit for trolls and people with absurdly repugnant views to waste each others time in a place where other people could ignore it-- rather than these discussions invading every other thread and making them useless to the majority of people who want nothing to do with that stuff-- who feel they morally can't just sit and pretend its okay to advance horrible policies but also don't want to waste their lives rehashing ethical arguments that most people considered settled a century ago. The "designated crap thread" approach is sometimes more effective than punting the sources outright (and also less harmful to false positives)...

This post strongly indicates otherwise and is causing me a vertigo inducing shift in how I perceive the author and his community.

I couldn't be more disappointed. And I'm only left hoping that the support of that toxicity expressed in Scott's post is an emotional retaliation to the despicable harassment he reported experiencing ... rather than an earnest position.

I feel like a lot of the HN commentary is essentially unrelated to the actual 'event' -- The 'deplatforming' trend is concerning... but that doesn't really tell us much about this particular venue. Especially since it continues to exist and hasn't in fact, been subject to deplatforming or anything similar. The connection only goes in so far as some of the same pressures probably exists, but I would be a lot more interested in hearing what went on behind some actual major deplatforming incidents. (Medium killing gab.ai's post explaining why they didn't believe their actions supported hate crimes would be an interesting candidate, since it was a meta-deplatforming, so doubly removed from most pragmatic tradeoffs...)

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, as described in this article, is that some people have good faith beliefs, respectfully expressed, that are nevertheless so repugnant to others that you will be tarred for not censoring them.

I don’t understand why people think giving space and respect to odious beliefs is somehow virtuous. What it does is normalize those beliefs and enable them to propagate while simultaneously exhausting those who oppose them. See Sarte’s comments on Anti-Semitism; the holders of odious beliefs are generally not “playing the same game” as those who oppose them, and giving space to all ideas, no matter how awful, is actu…

I think the Devil and Daniel Webster is a better reference here - if you chop down all the laws and norms that shield the Devil what is left to shield you?

By condoning silencing there is the risk you will be silenced - and the article demonstrates how the same means of suppression may be applied when your norms are judged unacceptable and it is intolerable for another to not censor.

Both have valid points and the precise answer is likely nuanced and/or a matter of opinion.

Post reply on HN